Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT

37 ITR 271Supreme Court of India1959#112 most cited

What is Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT authority for?

An income tax assessment or addition cannot be sustained solely on the basis of suspicion, surmises, or conjectures, as strong suspicion does not amount to proof. The revenue authorities must rely on concrete evidence and material to frame an assessment.

567

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT · suspicion not proof · no addition on surmises · conjectures and suspicion · burden of proof income tax · Section 68 cash credits · Section 132(4) statement · assessment without evidence · Section 37(1) business expenditure · genuineness of transaction

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 68Section 148Section 153ASection 69C

Issues it is cited on

price riggingdumb documentssection 132(4a)statement under section 132(4)bogus long term capital gainsection 292cretracted statementloose paperson-moneybogus ltcgsection 132(4)penny stock

Judgments citing Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Gahoi Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2703/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiita Nos. 2702, 2703, 2710/Del/2013 Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar,CAFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, DR
Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 2(22)(e)Section 68

…f Tin Number and also PAN number were submitted. Thus, without their being any contrary material, no disallowance of expenses could have been made. In support strong reliance was placed by the Supreme Court in the case of Uma Charan Shaw & Ors. vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC). However, the Ld. AO had confirmed the said addition. Simply on the ground of bills does not contain the requisite details like TIN No. Bill No. Etc. 29. Ld. CIT(A)after considering entire facts, accepted the assessee’s explanation that, once the payment has been made through account paying cheque and the bills contain complete address along…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Gahoi Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2702/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiita Nos. 2702, 2703, 2710/Del/2013 Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar,CAFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, DR
Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 2(22)(e)Section 68

…f Tin Number and also PAN number were submitted. Thus, without their being any contrary material, no disallowance of expenses could have been made. In support strong reliance was placed by the Supreme Court in the case of Uma Charan Shaw & Ors. vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC). However, the Ld. AO had confirmed the said addition. Simply on the ground of bills does not contain the requisite details like TIN No. Bill No. Etc. 29. Ld. CIT(A)after considering entire facts, accepted the assessee’s explanation that, once the payment has been made through account paying cheque and the bills contain complete address along…

Mrs. Reena Jain, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1007/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr. Ratnesh Chand Jain, Deputy Commissioner Of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax, Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar, Circle-8(4), 658, 6Th Link Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. Pan No. Aabpj0683P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mrs. Reenajain, Deputy Commissioner Of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar Link Circle-8(4), 658, 6Th Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. Pan No. Aeapj6605C

For Appellant: Mr. Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Srivastava, DR
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr. Ratnesh Chand Jain, Deputy Commissioner of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax, Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar, Circle-8(4), 658, 6th Link Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. PAN No. AABPJ0683P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mrs. ReenaJain, Deputy Commissioner of…

Mr.Ratnesh Chand Jain, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1001/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr. Ratnesh Chand Jain, Deputy Commissioner Of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax, Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar, Circle-8(4), 658, 6Th Link Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. Pan No. Aabpj0683P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mrs. Reenajain, Deputy Commissioner Of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar Link Circle-8(4), 658, 6Th Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. Pan No. Aeapj6605C

For Appellant: Mr. Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Srivastava, DR
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr. Ratnesh Chand Jain, Deputy Commissioner of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax, Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar, Circle-8(4), 658, 6th Link Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. PAN No. AABPJ0683P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mrs. ReenaJain, Deputy Commissioner of…

Sri Vivek Jhunjhunwala, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward - 63(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2333/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 68

…question of law, arises for adjudication.— C. Vasantlal & Co. vs. CIT (1962) 45 ITR 206 (SC), M.O. Thomakutty vs. CIT (.1958) 34 ITR 501 (Ker)) and Mukand Singh vs. Sales Tax Tribunal (1998) 107 STC 300 (Punjab) relied on; Umacharan Shaw &Bros. vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) Applied; Jaspal Singh vs. CIT (2006) 205 CTR (P & H) 624 distinguished” 10. The Co-ordinate Bench of Ahmedabad in ITA Nos. 501 & 502/Ahd/2016 had the occasion to consider a similar issue which was wherein the assessment was framed on the strength of the statement of a broker. The relevant part reads as under:- “14. The entire assessment is…

Vasudha Jain, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1018/KOL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 10(38)Section 68

…question of law, arises for adjudication.— C. Vasantlal & Co. vs. CIT (1962) 45 ITR 206 (SC), M.O. Thomakutty vs. CIT (.1958) 34 ITR 501 (Ker)) and Mukand Singh vs. Sales Tax Tribunal (1998) 107 STC 300 (Punjab) relied on; Umacharan Shaw &Bros. vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) Applied; Jaspal Singh vs. CIT (2006) 205 CTR (P & H) 624 distinguished” 10. The Co-ordinate Bench of Ahmedabad in ITA Nos. 501 & 502/Ahd/2016 had the occasion to consider a similar issue which was wherein the assessment was framed on the strength of the statement of a broker. The relevant part reads as under:- “14. The entire assessment is…

B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4966/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 234ASection 68

…rom the bank account of parties who are income tax assessee’s and therefore no adverse inference can be drawn. 1.18 It is settled law that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. Reliance for this proposition is placed on 37 ITR 271 (SC) Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Co. v. CIT. It has been further held in the following cases that suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of proof: i) 37 ITR 151(SC) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v CIT The conclusions reached by the Tribunal should not be coloured by any irrelevant considerations or matters of prejudice and if there are any circu…

B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4965/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 234ASection 68

…rom the bank account of parties who are income tax assessee’s and therefore no adverse inference can be drawn. 1.18 It is settled law that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. Reliance for this proposition is placed on 37 ITR 271 (SC) Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Co. v. CIT. It has been further held in the following cases that suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of proof: i) 37 ITR 151(SC) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v CIT The conclusions reached by the Tribunal should not be coloured by any irrelevant considerations or matters of prejudice and if there are any circu…

B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4964/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 234ASection 68

…rom the bank account of parties who are income tax assessee’s and therefore no adverse inference can be drawn. 1.18 It is settled law that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. Reliance for this proposition is placed on 37 ITR 271 (SC) Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Co. v. CIT. It has been further held in the following cases that suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of proof: i) 37 ITR 151(SC) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v CIT The conclusions reached by the Tribunal should not be coloured by any irrelevant considerations or matters of prejudice and if there are any circu…

Sri Subrata Banerjee, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 51(1), Kolkata

ITA 2275/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 69C

…rictly discharged by adducing legal evidences, which would directly prove the fact of bogusness or establish circumstance unerringly and reasonably raising an interference to that effect. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shah & Bros. Vs. CIT 37 ITR 271 held that suspicion however strong, cannot take the place of evidence. In this connection we refer to the general view on the topic of conveyance of immovable properties. The rates/sale price are at variance with the circle rates fixed by the Registration authorities of the Government in most cases and the general impression is that cash would hav…

ITO, Ward - 4(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Tribute Trading and Finance Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1496/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 69C

…rictly discharged by adducing legal evidences, which would directly prove the fact of bogusness or establish circumstance unerringly and reasonably raising an interference to that effect. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shah & Bros. Vs. CIT 37 ITR 271 held that suspicion however strong, cannot take the place of evidence. In this connection we refer to the general view on the topic of conveyance of immovable properties. The rates/sale price are at variance with the circle rates fixed by the Registration authorities of the Government in most cases and the general impression is that cash would hav…

ITO, Ward - 4(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Tribute Trading and Finance Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1495/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 69C

…rictly discharged by adducing legal evidences, which would directly prove the fact of bogusness or establish circumstance unerringly and reasonably raising an interference to that effect. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shah & Bros. Vs. CIT 37 ITR 271 held that suspicion however strong, cannot take the place of evidence. In this connection we refer to the general view on the topic of conveyance of immovable properties. The rates/sale price are at variance with the circle rates fixed by the Registration authorities of the Government in most cases and the general impression is that cash would hav…

Shri Udit Agarwal, Kolkata vs. DCIT(It)-2(1), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed accordingly

ITA 1839/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2014-15 Shri Udit Agarwal V/S. Dcit (It)-2(1), 110, 3, Madan Mohan Burman Shanti Pally, Kolkata- Street, Kolkataa-007 107 [Pan No.Ahupa 0424 B] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 03-12-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 26-12-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22,Kolkata’S Order Dated 10.05.2017 Passed In Case No.71/Cit(A)/22/Kol/14-15/16-17 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Learned Representatives. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Ground Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Treating Its Long Term Capital Gains (Ltcg) Of ₹64,99,391/- To Be Unexplained Cash Credits U/S 68 Of The Act. The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion To This Effect Reads As Under:- ”06. Decision: 1. I Have Carefully Considered The Action Of The Ld. Ao In Treating The Amount Of Rs.67,24,391/- Being Claimed By The Appellant To Be Proceeds Of Shares Sold To Be Ltcg & Claimed As Exempt. The Findings Of The Ld. Ao Are Based On The Information Being Supplied By The Investigation Wing Of The Department At Kolkata. I Have Also Carefully Examined The Submissions Of The Appellant, Wherein

Section 143(3)Section 68

…ld AR, it is trite law that the suspicion howsoever strong, cannot partake the character of legal evidence. Reference was made to the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC, , Umacharan Shaw 37 ITR 271 and Omar Salay Mohamed Sait 37 ITR 151. The ld AR submitted that the entire case of the revenue is based upon the presumption that the assessee has ploughed back his own unaccounted money in the form of bogus LTCG. However, this presumption or suspicion howsoever strong it may be, but needs to be corroborated by some evidence to establish a link t…

ITO, Ward - 40(2), Kolkata vs. Shri Suresh Chand Gupta, Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1730/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2014-15 Ito Ward-40(2) V/S. Shri Suresh Chand Gupta 2Nd Floor, 3 16, Tara Chand Dutta Government Place Street, Kolkata-700073 West,Kolkata-700001 [Pan No.Aczpg 0724 C] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Ajoy Kr. Singh, Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 26-11-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 26-12-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Kolkata’S Order Dated 20.04.2017, Passed In Case No.10190/Cit(A)-12/Kol/Ward-40(2)/2016-17, In Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Revenue’S Sole Substantive Ground Raised In The Instant Appeal Pleads That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Reversing The Assessing Officer’S Action Treating Assessee’S Alleged Long Term Capital Gains (Ltcg) Of ₹3,84,74,960/- To Be Bogus In The Nature Of Unexplained Cash Credits U/S 68 Of The Act. The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion Qua The Impugned Sole Issue Reads As Under:- “3.2 I Have Perused The Observations & Findings Contained In The Assessment Order. I Have Also Considered The Submission Of The Appellant Along With Paper Book Filed By Ld. A/R Which Contained, Inter-Alia, The Following Documents:-

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…rictly discharged by adducing legal evidences, which would directly prove the fact of bogusness or establish circumstance unerringly and reasonably raising an interference to that effect. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shah & Bros. Vs. CIT 37 ITR 271 held that suspicion however strong, cannot take the place of evidence. In this connection we refer to the general view on the topic of conveyance of immovable properties. The rates/sale price are at variance with the circle rates fixed by the Registration authorities of the Government in most cases and the general impression is that cash would hav…

Rakesh Kumar Saraf, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1053/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1053/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Rakesh Kumar Saraf.....…..……………………………………....………………..…………………….….Appellant C/O Skrk Marketing (India) Pvt. Ltd. 19, Armenian Street 1St Floor Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Ajaps 3157 R] Income Tax Officer, Ward-36(1), Kolkata...............................…………….…………..…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

Section 10(38)Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 1053/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Rakesh Kumar Saraf.....…..……………………………………....………………..…………………….….Appellant C/o SKRK Marketing (India) Pvt. Ltd. 19, Armenian Street 1st Floor Kolkata – 700 001 [PAN : AJAPS 3157 R] Income Tax Officer, Ward-36(1), Kolkata...............................…………….…………..…...Respondent Appearances by: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. CIT Sr. D/R, appeari…

Smt. Minu Gupta, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 44(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 731/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 10(38)

…1 Smt. Minu Gupta, AY 2014-15 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “B” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम")Before "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/and "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM & Shri A. T. Varkey, JM] I.T.A. No. 731/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Minu Gupta Vs. Income-tax Officer, Wd-44(1), Kolkata (PAN: ADNPG3805F) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 13.11.2018 Date of Pronouncement 12.12.2018 For the Appellant Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate For the Respondent Shri Sankar Halder, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM T…

ITO, Ward - 40(4), Kolkata vs. Shri Vishwanath Gupta, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 1732/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

Section 10(38)Section 11Section 142(1)Section 68

…1 Vishwanath Gupta, AY 2014-15 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “B” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम")Before "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/and "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Shri M. Balaganesh, AM] I.T.A. No. 1732/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income-tax Officer, Wd-40(4), Vs. Shri Vishwanath Gupta Kolkata. (PAN: ADBPG7164K) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 10.10.2018 Date of Pronouncement 12.12.2018 For the Appellant Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR For the Respondent Shri Manish Tiwari, AR ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM This appe…

Uma Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Centrl Circle-3, New Delhi

ITA 1484/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S S Rana CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 143Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…d money through accommodation entries. This approach does not have any leg to stand. AO has failed to establish that the assessee has introduced his own unaccounted money in the shape of alleged sale proceeds of shares.‖— Umacharan Shaw & Bros. vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) and Kishinchand Chellaram vs. CIT (1980) 19 CTR (SC) 360 : (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) applied; Ashok Kumar Agarwal vs. Asstt. CIT (ITA No. 129/Agra/2004) and ITO vs. Naveen Gupta (2006) 5 SOT 94 (Del) approved. (Paras 12 & 13) ―It was the duty of the AO to bring on record sufficient evidences and material to prove that the documents filed by the…

Ritu Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 3, New Delhi

ITA 1481/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S S Rana CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 143Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…d money through accommodation entries. This approach does not have any leg to stand. AO has failed to establish that the assessee has introduced his own unaccounted money in the shape of alleged sale proceeds of shares.‖— Umacharan Shaw & Bros. vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) and Kishinchand Chellaram vs. CIT (1980) 19 CTR (SC) 360 : (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) applied; Ashok Kumar Agarwal vs. Asstt. CIT (ITA No. 129/Agra/2004) and ITO vs. Naveen Gupta (2006) 5 SOT 94 (Del) approved. (Paras 12 & 13) ―It was the duty of the AO to bring on record sufficient evidences and material to prove that the documents filed by the…

DCIT, Central Circle-5(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Prb Securities Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 211/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 211/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Prb Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcp 5425 G ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Manish Tiwari, AR
Section 143(3)

…assessment order which were based on suspicion, surmises and conjectures only although it is settled law that no assessment can be made on suspicion howsoever strong it may be. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Brothers vs. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC) held that " ..... there are many surmises and .conjectures, and the conclusion is the result of suspicion which cannot take the 'place of proof in these matters ..... ".' Reliance in this connection is placed on the celebrated decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) wherein the Hon'bl…